a) How many of the gripes are affected by Damian's new draft ? I found
many of my pet irritations were eliminated by the new one.
b) I suggest that Damian's new draft is committed as S-26 forthwith and
development begin on it.
c) Some of the comments in threads on documentation have been
Damian (), Carl ():
Partly that is because documentation isn't at the forefront of things
that need to be implemented for Perl 6 to be useful, so it's kind of
lagging behind the rest.
Partly it's because Damian is the owner of that synopsis, and he
practices a kind of drive-by-updating to
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 14:57, Carl Mäsak cma...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, thanks for your efforts so far. The discussions over the years
have shown at least me what an ungrateful task it is to be redesigning
Pod for Perl 6.
Yep, thanks, Damian!
Fortunately, doing _whatever_ for Perl 6 seems
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 at 13:49, Patrick R wrote:
Actually, it's worth noting that (a slightly modified version of)
Perl 5 POD has indeed been used to write several substantial
books. I'd be very sad if (Perl 6) POD couldn't be easily used
or converted into something that can be used
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jon Lang wrote:
John Gabriele wrote:
Personally, I've always thought that Perl has a very natural feel to
it, and deserves a doc markup format that's also natural: [Markdown]
(and [Pandoc]'s Markdown has just the right additions, IMO).
[Markdown]:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 19:57 , Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jon Lang wrote:
John Gabriele wrote:
Personally, I've always thought that Perl has a very natural feel to
it, and deserves a doc markup format that's also natural: [Markdown]
(and [Pandoc]'s Markdown has just the right
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
On Feb 12, 2010, at 19:57 , Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Jon Lang wrote:
John Gabriele wrote:
Personally, I've always thought that Perl has a very natural feel to
it, and deserves a doc markup format that's also natural:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:12 PM, Timothy S. Nelson
wayl...@wayland.id.auwrote:
There's a school of thought, common among printing/publishing types, that
insists that underline was intended solely to replace italics when they
couldn't be represented (i.e. no fonts, as with ASCII terminals and
Austin ():
I've been doing a bunch of NQP and PIR coding, where Pmichaud++ has been
trying to support some kind of POD syntax. With the release of the S26
draft, he has tightened the parsing to follow more of the rules laid out in
the spec, and after a few months, I've noticed that the trend
Personally, I've always thought that Perl has a very natural feel to
it, and deserves a doc markup format that's also natural: [Markdown]
(and [Pandoc]'s Markdown has just the right additions, IMO).
[Markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
[Pandoc]:
* John Gabriele (jmg3...@gmail.com) [100209 14:31]:
[Markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
[Pandoc]: http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/
[reST]: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html
Or, more Perl like:
[OODoc] http://perl.overmeer.net/oodoc/
On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Mark Overmeer m...@overmeer.net wrote:
* John Gabriele (jmg3...@gmail.com) [100209 14:31]:
[Markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
[Pandoc]: http://johnmacfarlane.net/pandoc/
[reST]: http://docutils.sourceforge.net/rst.html
Or, more Perl
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 9:31 AM, John Gabriele jmg3...@gmail.com wrote:
Personally, I've always thought that Perl has a very natural feel to
{snip}
Gah. Sorry for the quasi-double-post. I posted on google groups, it
didn't show up, then I jumped the gun and posted a similar message to
the ML.
John Gabriele wrote:
Personally, I've always thought that Perl has a very natural feel to
it, and deserves a doc markup format that's also natural: [Markdown]
(and [Pandoc]'s Markdown has just the right additions, IMO).
[Markdown]: http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/
[Pandoc]:
Carl observed:
Partly that is because documentation isn't at the forefront of things
that need to be implemented for Perl 6 to be useful, so it's kind of
lagging behind the rest.
Partly it's because Damian is the owner of that synopsis, and he
practices a kind of drive-by-updating to it. As
On Fri, Feb 05, 2010 at 03:43:04PM -0500, Austin Hastings wrote:
Second, POD is not XML, and it definitely isn't DOCBOOK. Why do I
need magic reserved words like TOC and APPENDIX? I'm not writing a
book, I'm writing code. And if I was writing a book, I wouldn't be
dumb enough to write it in
Personally, I've always thought that Perl has a very natural and
well-worn feel to it, and deserves a doc markup format that also feels
natural. What works very well for me is [Markdown] (and [Pandoc]'s
Markdown has mostly just the right additions, IMO).
[Markdown]:
Howdy,
I've been doing a bunch of NQP and PIR coding, where Pmichaud++ has been
trying to support some kind of POD syntax. With the release of the S26
draft, he has tightened the parsing to follow more of the rules laid out
in the spec, and after a few months, I've noticed that the trend (for
18 matches
Mail list logo
